I went to sleep thinking about Conflict of Interest and wakened up thinking about the first time it was suggested to me.
Ironically by the same lawyer retained by Council to examine the facts of the Morris law suit; George Rust D'Eye.
It was the November night of the Great Emergency during the last term..A Council meeting had convened .The former Mayor declared Council would now go into closed session and drew attention to the presence of solicitor George Rust D'Eye in the Council chamber.
The rest of Council filed obediently out. The Mayor brought the solicitor to my side.He wanted to have a few words with me, she said. and both indicated it should be outside the chamber.
I invited the solicitor to grab a seat. The Mayor left.
Mr. Rust D'Eye 's opening was a question. Had I retained a solicitor?
I answered ... Why would I do that?
He said he was not suggesting it.
He proceeded to elucidate the seriousness of the new Conflict of Interest Act
I had not retained a solicitor, neither had I invited Mr.Rust D'Eye to advise me, I thought but I didn't say it.I did not want to be rude.
As he talked, his purpose became apparent. My presence was not welcome in the in-camera meeting. I might hear something to my advantage, if the matter were to proceed to litigation.
At that point I decided it was time to attend the meeting.
I said. "I am a member of council. I have a right to be at this meeting.That is exactly what I intend to do"
If the subject was such, a duly elected Councillor should not attend then which Councillor did have a right to be there.Was there in fact a right to hold the meeting?
A news story had reported Council turned down a request by the Police Chief and Regional Chairman to sell land. at the asking price, the town had for sale, to build the Regional Police Headquarters.
The presumption was a leak from an in camera meeting.
It was decided in September. "The leak" was in November. Decisions made behind closed doors are required to be reported out to the public.
Weeks passed. No sign of reporting out. The entire police department, were aware of the incredible decision. Yet a leak was presumed.
In camera meetings are not for the purpose of giving cover to political gamesmanship.
If the municipal interest is harmed by information being revealed for an improper purpose ; a financial advantage; to sell in return for a bribe; a serious breach of trust has occurred. That's a criminal offence.
Refusal to sell land we had for sale at the asking price for the purpose of building the Regional Police Headquarters was far more damaging to the public interest than the public becoming aware of the fact..
The reason for refusal added nothing to its lustre.
The harridan pair were engrossed in their determination to degrade an officer of the corporation sufficiently to compel him to quit
The vote was not to refuse to sell the lands. The vote was not to authorise the official to continue to negotiate an agreement.
The great foo-for-aa about a need for legal advice to deal with the scandal of a leak and a rogue councillor was nothing more than an elaborate scam to divert attention from a plan to claim credit where none was due.
Saturday, 23 April 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment